Player Discussion Jake Virtanen | Jake It Or Break It Edition

[LordBacon]

Seems to me you're implying that as long as a winger can skate and focused on his defensive duties he can be a decent or at least not be a liability defensively in the NHL. I don't think that's true at all.

Jannik hansen comes to mind.

 

[Lindgren]

Speed PLUS effort/motor.

It's very difficult to think of a fast, hard-working player who is a weak defensive player. Of course there are guys who are fast but don't move their feet without the puck on their stick.

Well, I came up with the example of Molino.

I think players at all positions, including wingers, are constantly needing to make decisions with the flow of play that require judgement, vision, IQ, whatever -- about positioning, when to go for the hit, try a stick check, apply pressure or not, etc., no matter how rigid and defined the defensive system. Not every winger with speed, effort, and motor can be Bob Gainey.

Is Goldobin simply lacking the physical tools to be good defensively, or is he better defensively than he's given credit for, or is he perversely sabotaging his career by not trying, or what?

At risk of being charged with making an appeal to authority, I'll say it'd be interesting to ask coaches whether the defensive side of the game requires any intelligence from wingers.

 

[CanaFan]

Well, I came up with the example of Molino.

I think players at all positions, including wingers, are constantly needing to make decisions with the flow of play that require judgement, vision, IQ, whatever -- about positioning, when to go for the hit, try a stick check, apply pressure or not, etc., no matter how rigid and defined the defensive system. Not every winger with speed, effort, and motor can be Bob Gainey.

Is Goldobin simply lacking the physical tools to be good defensively, or is he better defensively than he's given credit for, or is he perversely sabotaging his career by not trying, or what?

At risk of being charged with making an appeal to authority, I'll say it'd be interesting to ask coaches whether the defensive side of the game requires any intelligence from wingers.

Goldobin could be better defensively if he chose to apply himself, but so far he has been slow to do so. Offensive players absolutely make a choice to cheat on their defensive assignments in order to create offense. They conserve energy coming back, they try to steal pucks rather than contain their guy, they cheat the zone, etc. This is why so much of defense for a winger is simply your commitment to actually doing it, which often comes at a cost to your offense. Guys like Goldobin have been allowed to cheat their entire careers up until the NHL because their offense outpaced their defensive flaws. When that changes at the NHL some guys can make the change and some can’t. It has nothing to do with Goldobin being smart enough, otherwise he’d already be doomed to failure (considering you can’t change a player’s IQ but you can change their effort). If you asked Travis Green I am confident he’d say Goldobin’s defensive issues are effort and focus, not some innate inability to play good defense (i.e. IQ).

 

[DL44]

Virtanen is good at taking time and space away from the D in the ozone on the forecheck, and he is good at taking away time and space from forwards on the back check.

He is good at getting into passing lanes, especially on the rush back check.

He is good at turning the back up the ice.

Jake is good at defence.

The amount anyone wants to subjectively ‘credit’ or ‘dismiss’ the reasons why, is ridiculous.

Jake is good at defence.

 

[CanaFan]

Virtanen is good at taking time and space away from the D in the ozone on the forecheck, and he is good at taking away time and space from forwards on the back check.

He is good at getting into passing lanes, especially on the rush back check.

He is good at turning the back up the ice.

Jake is good at defence.

Yep, no one was arguing he wasn’t.

 

[Lindgren]

Goldobin could be better defensively if he chose to apply himself, but so far he has been slow to do so. Offensive players absolutely make a choice to cheat on their defensive assignments in order to create offense. They conserve energy coming back, they try to steal pucks rather than contain their guy, they cheat the zone, etc. This is why so much of defense for a winger is simply your commitment to actually doing it, which often comes at a cost to your offense. Guys like Goldobin have been allowed to cheat their entire careers up until the NHL because their offense outpaced their defensive flaws. When that changes at the NHL some guys can make the change and some can’t. It has nothing to do with Goldobin being smart enough, otherwise he’d already be doomed to failure (considering you can’t change a player’s IQ but you can change their effort). If you asked Travis Green I am confident he’d say Goldobin’s defensive issues are effort and focus, not some innate inability to play good defense (i.e. IQ).

I'd say he may indeed be doomed to failure, and if he does fail we'll never know whether it's for the reasons you cite or because he just can't get his head around defending.

I don't play hockey, but I've played and coached soccer at a pretty high level, and I've seen plenty of players who were simply dunces when it came to the defensive side of the game. It wasn't speed, motor, or effort holding them back. They just couldn't get it. To me, it defies logic to think that the same phenomenon doesn't exist in other sports, including hockey, and including wingers.

 

[Lindgren]

Yep, no one was arguing he wasn’t.

Well, there was an argument that being "good" at these things was more-or-less independent of IQ. I think the poster uses "good at" to suggest there is something involved that is more than simply skating fast and following a system, something like defensive IQ, or whatever term you'd like to use.

 

[DL44]

Well, there was an argument that being "good" at these things was more-or-less independent of IQ. I think the poster uses "good at" to suggest there is something involved that is more than simply skating fast and following a system, something like defensive IQ, or whatever term you'd like to use.

It’s nonsensical argument to even attempt to make.

 

[Melvin]

Well, there was an argument that being "good" at these things was more-or-less independent of IQ. I think the poster uses "good at" to suggest there is something involved that is more than simply skating fast and following a system, something like defensive IQ, or whatever term you'd like to use.

I thought the argument was that he has a low IQ but can still be a useful player despite this, whereas DL44 thinks he has a high IQ.

I'll admit I may have lost track of the argument at this point though.

 

[DL44]

I thought the argument was that he has a low IQ but can still be a useful player despite this, whereas DL44 thinks he has a high IQ.

I'll admit I may have lost track of the argument at this point though.

Seems you have.

 

[Melvin]

Seems you have.

Great contribution, as always.

 

[DL44]

Great contribution, as always.

I used to being misrepresented.

Twist my idea/tbought/etc into something it quite isn't and then argue against that. Carry on.

 

[CanaFan]

It’s nonsensical argument to even attempt to make.

It’s really not. Do you think Hansen has a higher hockey IQ than Ovechkin?

 

[CanaFan]

I thought the argument was that he has a low IQ but can still be a useful player despite this, whereas DL44 thinks he has a high IQ.

I'll admit I may have lost track of the argument at this point though.

I think the argument was originally that Jake’s defensive play is indicative of a high hockey IQ.

 

[VanJack]

There's obviously something meshed between Virtanen and Travis Green....he's come further in the last couple of seasons under Green's prodding and motivation than a lot of people thought possible. And I still think Virtanen has a lot more to give the Canucks, and he's apparently got the right coach to bring it out of him.

 

[Melvin]

I used to being misrepresented.

Twist my idea/tbought/etc into something it quite isn't and then argue against that. Carry on.

I freely said I may have lost track of your position but you had every opportunity to clarify your actual position instead of being a twat.

Do you think he has a high IQ or not?

 

[Doyle Hargraves]

There's obviously something meshed between Virtanen and Travis Green....he's come further in the last couple of seasons under Green's prodding and motivation than a lot of people thought possible. And I still think Virtanen has a lot more to give the Canucks, and he's apparently got the right coach to bring it out of him.

Let’s not put the cart before the horse here. Yes he’s improved but he still has to be a lot better and a lot more consistent. He will be 22 to start the season. Time to put up or shut up. Anything less than 15-20 goals and 30-40 points will be a massive disappointment.

 

[Melvin]

I think the argument was originally that Jake’s defensive play is indicative of a high hockey IQ.

Yet apparently me saying he thinks Virtanen has a high IQ is misrepresenting him. So hence the confusion.

 

[DL44]

Let’s not put the cart before the horse here. Yes he’s improved but he still has to be a lot better and a lot more consistent. He will be 22 to start the season. Time to put up or shut up. Anything less than 15-20 goals and 30-40 points will be a massive disappointment.

Pretty agree with this.
He needs to string his good games together now and earn that ice available.
His consistency went up as the season progressed... look forward to continuing.

Not hitting 15g 30pts would be a massive disappointment for me as well.
Above both those, I would have to take and move on to another year.... but I wanna see 20-20 THIS YEAR. I'm expecting a breakout this season.

 

[RobertKron]

There's obviously something meshed between Virtanen and Travis Green....he's come further in the last couple of seasons under Green's prodding and motivation than a lot of people thought possible. And I still think Virtanen has a lot more to give the Canucks, and he's apparently got the right coach to bring it out of him.

You think that Virtanen is currently more as a player than a lot of people thought possible for a 6OA to become?

 

[Melvin]

I freely said I may have lost track of your position but you had every opportunity to clarify your actual position instead of being a ****.

Do you think he has a high IQ or not?

Sure, accuse me of misrepresenting your opinion but then completely ignore the direct question for you to actually clarify your position on the matter.

 

[DL44]

You think that Virtanen is currently more as a player than a lot of people thought possible for a 6OA to become?

Definitely more than a lot thought possible for Virtanen.

 

[RobertKron]

Definitely more than a lot thought possible for Virtanen.

A lot of people, after Virtanen’s D+2 where he played in the NHL as a 4th/3rd liner on a ~19 point pace, definitely thought it would be impossible that Virtanen could ever become a 20 point 4th/3rd line player? That is your position here?

 

[CanaFan]

Definitely more than a lot thought possible for Virtanen.

I definitely thought he could score 10 goals and get into the line up regularly. It was the dream of a top 6 goal scorer that died for me around that time.

 

[DL44]

A lot of people, after Virtanen’s D+2 where he played in the NHL, thought it would be impossible that Virtanen could ever become a 20 point 4th/3rd line player?

It's been a roller coaster hasn't it?

Many in this thread goal scoring thread will shocked to see him score 15 this yr... so you tell me.
Let's review the poll.... 57ish% for 15g or under.... of 220 people.
So i wouldn't say there's much faith in the kid.